Subscribe To

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Better Dead Than Traditionally Wed

Russia's Global
Anti-Libertarian Crusade: How Vladimir Putin's desire for domination and
acceptance is scrambling American politics, by Cathy Young and published by
Reason.com.

Yes, it’s all Putin’s fault – even at Reason Magazine.

The beltway mainstream libertarians are coming out in force
for war with Russia, and criticizing the libertarians who are against war with
Russia.Their desire for the libertine
overwhelms any concerns they might have regarding war with Russia.

Now they don’t say all of this in so many words, but one
need not be a high school graduate to see where this is all headed.

Let’s allow Cathy Young to set the stage:

·NATO expanding to Russia’s borders should not be
seen as a threat by Russia, but as an olive branch of peace;

·The EU should not be viewed as an unaccountable bureaucracy,
but an organization dedicated to advancing liberty in Europe;

·Western involvement in color revolutions (if it
even occurs) – even on the doorsteps of Russia – should not be seen as
destabilizing, but as advancement of liberal democracy;

·Creating turmoil throughout the Muslim world
should not be viewed as a threat to Russia – which not only directly borders
this Muslim world but is also home to something in the order of 10 million
Muslims, but instead seen as a move toward expanding freedom.

And how are libertarians who might believe otherwise viewed?

…pro-Russian (or at least
anti-anti-Russian) arguments have become fairly common not just among
conservatives but among a contingent of libertarians, such as former Rep. Ron
Paul and Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo.

And why?

…Ron Paul–style libertarians are
inclined to see Russia as a check on U.S. foreign adventurism and Russia hawks
as hardcore proponents of the American imperial leviathan.

An incomplete view is the most charitable way I can describe
this, although for a libertarian even just this might be reason enough to be
“anti-anti-Russian.”

And why are these beltway mainstream libertarians against
Russia?(Emphasis added)

Schindler cites a 2013 speech in
which Putin deplored the rejection of
"Christian values" by "many Euro-Atlantic countries,"
defended Russia's right to protect
traditional morality, and criticized attempts to export "extreme
Western-style liberalism" worldwide. (The
main example of Western decadence and liberal extremism was, of course,
same-sex marriage.)

Get the picture?Do
you think my title was a joke?And for
this, the West must go to war against Russia.And any libertarian (or anyone else) who disagrees is, by definition, on
Putin’s payroll.(He must not have my
wiring instructions.I’m still waiting.)

The Death of
Democracy

As if – at least as it is currently practiced in much of the
West – this would be a bad thing….

The dominant narrative in the U.S.
foreign policy establishment and mainstream media casts Putin as the implacable
enemy of the Western liberal order…In this narrative, President Donald Trump
is…a witting or unwitting instrument of subversion, useful to Putin either as
an ideological ally or as an incompetent who will strengthen Russia's hand by
destabilizing American democracy.

To the extent democracy is both worthwhile (a position I do
not grant) and meaningful, American democracy was destabilized years ago – all
on its own doing.What was the Kennedy
assassination but a destabilization of democracy?What about the lies and false flags intended
to drive the people toward a passion for war?How can there be anything approaching a stable democracy when the
mainstream media so blatantly and regularly lie to the public, acting as
nothing more than press agents for the state?

At its extremes, the Russian
subversion narrative relies on a great deal of conspiratorial thinking. It also
far too easily absolves the Western political establishment of responsibility
for its failures, from the defeat of European Union supporters in England's
Brexit vote to Hillary Clinton's loss in last November's election. Putin makes
a convenient boogeyman.

I read this and scratch my head.Democracy’s failures can be seen in Brexit or
in Hillary’s election loss?What on
earth does that even mean?Was there a
vote or wasn’t there?

Is Reason a Neocon
Tool?

Nonetheless, there is a real
Russian effort to counter American—plus NATO and E.U.—influence…

What libertarian thinks in such terms?A libertarian would want to see the influence
of the American government, NATO, and the EU all countered and reduced.Bad enough we are under the yoke of
unbelievably massive state governments, NATO and the EU are entities of force
and coercion even above and outside of the state.I wish the United States would work to
counter NATO and EU influence – how could a libertarian think otherwise?Thank God someone is doing it.

Of course, one could say that the state – any state – should not be used to
counter anything.OK, I agree.So, get the US out of NATO; get the US out of military bases around the
world.Let’s keep in mind: on whose
borders has NATO encroached since the end of the Cold War?

A Call For More
Government Action…

…as opposed to less government action.

What should American policy be
toward Putin's Russia?

How about stay out of their business?How about stay out of their neighborhood?How about no more destabilizations of its
neighbors?How about that for an American policy?

No, not at Reason.

While "democracy
promotion" in countries with no homegrown liberal tradition is a project
likely to remain discredited for the foreseeable future…

Talk about an understatement.Have you seen the results?But, there is a bigger question: under what
aspect of libertarian theory does the idea of “democracy promotion” by one
government toward another country fall?

…support for genuine grassroots pro-freedom
aspirations in countries that look to America for leadership is a far more
complicated matter.

Under what aspect of libertarian theory does the idea of
“support for genuine grassroots pro-freedom aspirations” by one government
toward another region fall?

Ukraine, Georgia, and even the
Baltic states may not be paragons of liberal capitalism today. Yet if they were
bullied into a return to Russian vassalage, it would be a net loss for liberty
and, arguably, for America as well.

Isn’t it their business?Does it do any good for such smaller countries to rely on the good
graces of some government five thousand miles away while at the same time being
antagonistic toward its own neighbors?How much liberty has been lost by those in the Ukraine today because of
this?

Putin’s Warped
Thinking About the West

What brought Putin’s ideas on?

Some Russia watchers, including
Evan Osnos, David Remnick, and Joshua Yaffa in a March 2017 article for The New
Yorker, trace this change in attitude to the war in Iraq….

Putin's turn against the West is
far more likely to have been precipitated by perceived infringements on
Russia's sphere of influence—especially Ukraine's Orange Revolution, which
began in November 2004….

Vitaly Portnikov argued that Putin
was pushed toward even more hardline anti-Western views by the Arab Spring,
which he also attributed to Western subversion….

The Russian president certainly
seems to have been rattled by the brutal death of the deposed Libyan dictator
Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, which Putin publicly blamed on NATO.

A pretty damning list of the west’s transgressions, from a
libertarian (or merely human) perspective.

And what was Russia’s part?

Earlier this year, prosecutors in
Montenegro charged that a thwarted violent coup in the fall of 2016 had been
engineered by two Russian military intelligence officers with the help of
paramilitary Russian and Serbian nationalists.

A total of two…yes, two…military intelligence officers.

I rest my case…wait…wait a minute.Young wrote those words, not me.Whose
side is she on?

Pointing Out the
Speck in Russia’s Eye

While missing the log…

[The Kremlin] has a global
propaganda machine and a network of political operatives dedicated to
cultivating far-right and sometimes far-left groups in Europe and elsewhere.

Is there any government in the world that meddles more in
the business of other countries than does the government of the United
States?Non-governmental organizations by
the hundreds, in every country of the world?By the way, what is a non-governmental organization?They are, partially or significantly, funded
by the government, after all.Does the
funding come with no strings?No
proposal of mission had to be made to secure the funding?

Of course, for many libertarians,
the post–Cold War international order that Putin seeks to undo is itself of
dubious value.

You think?What has
this “post-Cold War international order” brought other than war and chaos?Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen.What has this order done but drastically
increase tension in Central and Eastern Europe?What has it given after a 65 year Cold War on the Korean Peninsula but
the opportunity for a massive hot war?What has it offered other than the biggest, most catastrophic financial bubble
known to history?

Nothing.Well,
besides gay marriage, men using women’s toilets, a universe of new gender
pronouns.

Yet for all the valid criticisms of
the Western liberal establishment and its foreign and domestic policies, there
is little doubt that the ascendancy of hardcore far-right or far-left
authoritarianism would lead to a less freedom-friendly world.

It really depends on how you define “freedom-friendly.”Staying alive by reducing tension and
minimizing the chance of war is the most “freedom-friendly” policy that I can
think of.The pushback cannot be
characterized as only coming from the “hardcore far-right or far-left.”In any case, look again at this post-Cold War
international order”; let’s be glad someone
is pushing back against it.

Still, most Republicans in
Washington don't share the party base's newfound affection for the Russian
president: A spending bill unveiled by the Republican-controlled Congress
includes at least $100 million for a Countering Russian Influence Fund,
intended to support "civil society organizations and other entities"
in Europe and Central Asia.

This bill is one of hundreds of similar such bills approved
by the US government, totaling countless tens of billions of dollars; these
bills officially support US government meddling in the affairs of other
countries.

I will guess Russia hasn’t spent $100 million in total since
the fall of the Soviet Union on such things.They can’t afford it.

War is Preferred…

…if the path toward complete destruction of traditional
Western values is thwarted.

…the Kremlin positions itself as a
defender of tradition and sovereignty against the godless progressivism and the
migrant hordes overtaking the West.

I don’t think they are just “positioning” themselves this
way.Is this not the way Russia is
acting?Is there evidence that counters
this?More importantly, is this a bad
thing?

Tradition
vs. progressivism: someone or something is going to make the laws.We have seen the consequences of man-made
laws that came with progressivism; we have also seen the possibility of all men
(including the king) truly under the law.

Sovereignty?Someone
or something will always be sovereign.No matter how centralized or decentralized a community, a community will
have a sovereign.Shall NATO be
sovereign?The EU?I say the lower the level the better, which
is why I support every move toward decentralization
– be it Brexit, secessionist movements in Europe, even Calexit.

All such movements increase options; I would like to see
about 1.5 billion options (one per household), but I will settle for a few
thousand.

As to those migrant hordes?First of all, there wouldn’t be any of those migrant hordes had not the
United States government destroyed
their homes.Second, they are overtaking the west…am I missing
something?

Most importantly, is
this a reason to threaten global nuclear war?Because we know where this road leads.

[Former National Security Agency
analyst John R.] Schindler asserts that the Russian leader's holy-war ideology
sees the West as "an implacable foe" of Russia and her Orthodox faith…

Yes.Is there
something faulty with Putin’s view in this regard?

[Dubbed “Putin’s Rasputin,”
Alexander] Dugin argues that human rights-based liberalism is totalitarian,
since it wants to impose itself everywhere and allows no alternatives, while
his traditionalism is genuinely pluralistic, since it respects all cultures,
political systems, and beliefs—as long as they make no claim to universalism.

The same ideology for all, all men (women, whatever gender
pronoun you want) created equal…everywhere.Nice sounding words…until they are put into practice.It is the goal of leftists (and left-libertarians,
but I repeat myself) everywhere.We see
what happens when they put this into practice.All individualism destroyed; all private property under the direction or
control of the state.

You cannot get more totalitarian than this.Local human rights-based liberalism leads to property
violations; global human rights-based liberalism will only be achieved by war.But this is preferable to the defense of
traditional Western cultural values; just ask Cathy Young and Reason.

Even his 2013 speech lamenting
Western moral decline was delivered at the Valdai Club, Russia's Davos-style
annual hangout for domestic and foreign intellectual and political elites.
That's an odd venue for an "Orthodox Jihadist" diatribe.

When someone speaks of defending gay marriage, it is liberty
and equality; when someone speaks of defending Christian values, it is a “diatribe.”

It is only an odd venue when one looks at it through the lens
of progressivism that has poisoned the West.There was a time when the elites of the West supported tradition; it was a time of stable law – a pretty good
characteristic to have in law, even if the law is not perfectly libertarian.

And even those remarks also praised
secular patriotism and religious diversity, and called for openness to
"the best ideas and practices of the East and the West."

How could this zealot Putin say such things?Might one consider that the world is not as
black and white as Young suggests?We
are forced to think in terms of Hegelian dialectics – these are the two
choices, this is the range of allowable discussion.

Putin is saying nothing more than this: different cultures
have different cultures; there are positive ways to expose these differences to
others, and there are negative ways to do it.

The West through its progressive, democrat-exporting agenda
has been pursuing the negative way.But
if the West’s way must be given up, Cathy Young prefers war:

Economic sanctions—particularly
when they target the Russian political elite and its properties abroad, as
opposed to targeting ordinary Russian consumers—can be more effective than they
are often believed to be.

What a joke.This is war, and it is war against the
common people.Who suffers in North
Korea?Is it the leader or is it the
people?

Does Young really believe that sanctions can be designed to
avoid impacting common people and only effect well-connected
multi-billionaires?They have wealth,
homes, assets, connections in dozens of countries around the world.They have far more experience at dodging the
G-man than does any G-man at finding them.

Sanctions always and everywhere end up impacting the common
man.

Conclusion

That view manages to ignore not only
Russia's coziness with Iran…

Try it this way:

That
view manages to ignore not only Washington’s coziness with Saudi Arabia…

That
view manages to ignore not only Washington’s coziness with Israel…

Hurts those politically correct, beltway sensitivities, doesn’t
it.

In Putin's perfect world, Russia
would have an authoritarian regime that secures his own hold on power and
ill-gotten wealth and treats smaller nearby countries as vassal states—while
also being recognized as a major player on the world stage and a member of the
club of free nations.These somewhat
incompatible goals are reflected in Russia's schizophrenic official rhetoric…

Let’s try it this way:

In
Washington’s perfect world, it would have an authoritarian regime that
secures its own hold on power and
ill-gotten wealth and treats smaller nearby countries as vassal states—while
also being recognized as a major player on the world stage and the sole
leader of the club of free nations.These somewhat incompatible goals are
reflected in the West’s schizophrenic
official rhetoric…

Which of these two better describes the situation of the
world since the end of the Cold War?

On the whole, Reason Magazine may have begun as libertarian, but no more, nor has it been for many years, with the exception of a handful of its contributors. This libertarian didn't renew her subscription some twenty plus years ago.

As usual, a thoughtful, passionate criticism of the unthoughtful direction American and even nominally libertarian public policy is heading. I especially appreciate the central role that culture occupies in your political reasoning. I attempted to raise questions about how it came about that the current values of the prevailing elite are so at odds with the values almost everybody took for granted when I was growing up, in my "Smoking, Same Sex Marriage and Vladimir Putin: Reflections on Dr. Carl Schmitt", published in The Independent Review, summer 2015. Nothing seems to inflame political progressives or their thoughtless acolytes more than the casual observation that their cutting edge goal now amounts to be making the world safe for transgender bathrooms. I am sure, given the Permanent Revolution entailed in political correctness prescriptions, nothing being more limitless or perverse than the imagination of the left regarding the ever expanding domain of the hate crime, that, no more than five years from now, transgenderism will seem, by contrast to ever evolving perceptions of injustice and subsequent demands for equality, a modest goal. Having struggled to free myself from the Cold War anti-Russian prejudices indoctrinated in me while I was yet a child, I am amused, and frightened, by the hysteria of the war party embodied on the political left. Please continue your struggle for political and moral sanity!

Thank you, William. From what you write, you must also be familiar with Angelo Codevilla. If not, his writing can be found at the Claremont Review of books. I also believe Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods have each interviewed him.

"I read this and scratch my head. Democracy’s failures can be seen in Brexit or in Hillary’s election loss? What on earth does that even mean? Was there a vote or wasn’t there?"

This is a silly comment. The previous quote to which this refers clearly states the 'political establishment's ... failures', not 'democracy's failures'. Brexit and Trump's election victory were undoubtedly failures of establishment politics.

No. My point was only that your comment was incorrect about the failure represented by Brexit and Trump. The paragraph you cite for criticism from the Cathy Young article is generally correct and well reasoned. Putin does indeed make a convenient bogey man on which to lay the blame for the establishments electoral failures.

I thought I would bring it to your attention since the rest of the article is really great.

Thank God for your always focussed thoughts and criticism regarding the thoughtless direction that American, sometimes nominally libertarian, public policy is taking. Having freed myself from Cold War anti-Russian prejudices indoctrinated in me while yet a child, I am frightened, and amused, to see the left's war party's anti-Russian hysteria, and its affect on public discourse. I have no doubt about the roots of the hatred for Vladimir Putin: nothing inflames the wrath of the Progressives more than an unapologetically Christian nationalism. When the cutting edge goal of the left can be reduced to making the world safe for transgender rest rooms, it is clear how petty, and insane, the self loathing aspirations of our own elite are. Given the limitless perversity of human imagination and given the condition of cultural Permanent Revolution we are in, I have no doubt that future perceptions of hitherto unnoticed injustice will lead to novel demands for equality by contrast with which, transgender demands will appear as relatively modest . On the bright side, consider the expanding job opportunities in the area of Thought Policing. I myself reflected upon the transvaluation of values that took place not that long ago in "Smoking, Same Sex Marriages and Vladimir Putin: Reflections on Dr. Carl Schmitt", Independent Review (summer 2015). The question that occupies me is how values taking for granted for so long, when now espoused are condemned as evil: the judgment that monogamous relationships are natural, for instance. Keep up the struggle: your articles go to the heart of what is wrong in the contemporary western world, and provoke thinking about how to correct that condition.